Monday, September 12, 2005

IDF General Escapes Arrest

It is too bad we don't see items like this reported in the US press.

General (res.) Doron Almog, former head of the Israel Defense Forces' Southern Command, escaped arrest Sunday by the London police's anti-terrorist and war crimes unit, when he remained on an aircraft that had landed in Heathrow airport and returned with it to Israel several hours later.

Almog had arrived in London on an El-Al flight. Israel Ambassador Zvi Hefetz learned of a plan to arrest him for allegedly perpetrating war crimes during the intifada, and quickly informed Yaki Dayan, head of the political department in Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom's bureau.


One would think this would have been a bigger incident between the U.K. and Israel, or that the US would have made a statement.

Link

15 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn - that is crazy. I can only imagine the hell that would've been raised had they caught him.

9/12/2005 01:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Irving comments:

"First, who tipped off Herr General and his ambassador that it would be, ahem, better if he did not descend the steps of the plane into the waiting arms and handcuffs of the no doubt hidden Scotland Yard officers?
Is it yet another case case of dual loyalties - some civil servant putting his concealed loyalty toward a foreign power above his debt of gratitude and loyalty toward the country which gave him, or his recent ancestors, shelter?"

"...Third, passengers on a plane that has landed on British soil are not beyond the jurisdiction of our courts; why did the Scotland Yard officers not board the El Al Flight and take him off?"

9/13/2005 09:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah yes, David Irving, who was found in a British court to be a right wing polemicist, holocaust denier, and who had distorted and manipulated facts to write his antisemitic tracts!

By the way, the general was travelling to England to help raise funds for developmentally disabled children. Damn that IDF war criminal!

9/13/2005 01:50:00 PM  
Anonymous r said...

Hollywood fires a shot over the bow.


http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article312216.ece

British film-maker wins three posthumous Emmys
By Terri Judd
Published: 13 September 2005

Two years after James Miller was shot dead by a soldier from the Israeli Defence Force while making a documentary on the region, his film has been honoured with three Emmy awards.

Death in Gaza looks at the lives of three children at the Rafah refugee camp caught up in the cycle of violence between the Israeli army and Palestinian fighters, and documents the killing of the 34-year-old British documentary maker.

On Sunday night in Los Angeles his family accepted awards for outstanding direction, outstanding cinematography and exceptional merit in non-fiction film-making. "Three Emmys but still no justice," his widow, Sophy, said. "We are all immensely proud of James but will not rest until we get justice. The IDF, Israel's national army ... have failed to investigate his killing properly. They have to be held to account." The family is taking civil action against the Israeli government.

Mr Miller was killed as he walked towards an armoured personnel carrier, shining a torch on to a white flag. Eleven shots rang out and he was hit in the neck.

The officer who fired the shot that killed Mr Miller, a first lieutenant in the Bedouin Desert Reconnaissance Battalion, was due to face a disciplinary hearing but acquitted by Brigadier General Guy Tzur, the head of the army's southern command. The army expressed regret but said Mr Miller had "taken great risks by being in a virtual war zone".

Mr Miller, already an Emmy winner for his 2001 documentary Unholy War, has won several other posthumous accolades for Death in Gaza, including a Bafta.

Two years after James Miller was shot dead by a soldier from the Israeli Defence Force while making a documentary on the region, his film has been honoured with three Emmy awards.

Death in Gaza looks at the lives of three children at the Rafah refugee camp caught up in the cycle of violence between the Israeli army and Palestinian fighters, and documents the killing of the 34-year-old British documentary maker.

On Sunday night in Los Angeles his family accepted awards for outstanding direction, outstanding cinematography and exceptional merit in non-fiction film-making. "Three Emmys but still no justice," his widow, Sophy, said. "We are all immensely proud of James but will not rest until we get justice. The IDF, Israel's national army ... have failed to investigate his killing properly. They have to be held to account." The family is taking civil action against the Israeli government.

Mr Miller was killed as he walked towards an armoured personnel carrier, shining a torch on to a white flag. Eleven shots rang out and he was hit in the neck.

The officer who fired the shot that killed Mr Miller, a first lieutenant in the Bedouin Desert Reconnaissance Battalion, was due to face a disciplinary hearing but acquitted by Brigadier General Guy Tzur, the head of the army's southern command. The army expressed regret but said Mr Miller had "taken great risks by being in a virtual war zone".

Mr Miller, already an Emmy winner for his 2001 documentary Unholy War, has won several other posthumous accolades for Death in Gaza, including a Bafta.

9/13/2005 08:24:00 PM  
Anonymous r said...

anonymous....the world is against war criminals. And after jews ran around the world excuting nazis without a trial I think this is pretty civilized. Wanna be in the game, play by the rules.

In the dock

By Haaretz Editorial

The arrest warrant that awaited Major General (res.) Doron Almog in Great Britain, and similar arrest warrants that may await other senior officers like Dan Halutz and Moshe Ya'alon, are not a diplomatic incident between Israel and Great Britain. Similar warrants could crop up in every country that has added the Geneva Convention to its body of laws - when a complaint is issued in these countries of a severe human rights violation, its legal authorities can try any person, even if they are not a citizen of that country and even if they carried out the alleged crimes in another country. According to the ruling of the Court of Appeals in The Hague, immunity from prosecution is extended only to presiding heads of state and foreign ministers.

The countries of the free world have decided that because it is not always possible to depend on countries to try their own war criminals, punishment for serious crimes should pursue their perpetrators to any place they seek asylum. The universal authority other nations have taken on themselves has been applied with great enthusiasm in recent years, as a counterweight to the U.S. opposition to cooperation with the International War Crimes Tribunal. Thus in Switzerland and Germany, citizens from the former Yugoslavia were convicted for human rights violations in Bosnia, and Pakistani nationals were tried in Great Britain for crimes committed in Afghanistan.

Tony Blair would probably have been happy to prevent the issuing of the arrest warrant against Almog, knowing that his officers stationed in Iraq might be subjected to similar treatment elsewhere in Europe. But in Great Britain, as in other democracies, law enforcement authorities operate independently. Supporters of the separation of powers cannot complain to the government of Great Britain for persecuting Israelis. The international wave of terror has changed the rules of the game, and many enlightened countries are taking measures that are not commensurate with the protection of human rights. This is not to say that countries, especially democracies, can do whatever they choose when it comes to the war on terror. Courts are meant to serve as moral barriers against the use of unreasonable means. However the courts in Israel turned their heads when asked to address the demolition of hundreds of houses in Gaza, the expropriation of private lands for the use of the occupying country, and the expulsion of 25,000 Palestinians from their homes in Hebron to expand the Jewish quarter. None of these constitutes valid means in the war on terror. The vacuum created by judges in Israel in dealing with these issues is what led to the appeal to the legal authorities in Europe.

One can complain about the hypocrisy of legal authorities who are tough on Israel and easy on other countries. One can ascribe political and anti-Semitic motives to plaintiffs and judges. But it is hard to claim that our hands are clean. Every officer who carries out an order involving serious human rights violations must take into consideration that he will find himself in the dock. An unbalanced and disproportionate use of universal authority to bring individuals to trial may sometimes be excessive and unjust, but the abrogation of the option to pursue war criminals wherever they may be could bring the wheels of justice grinding to a halt

9/13/2005 09:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the world is against war criminals"

Really? Then how come an arrest warrent was not issued for Yasser Arafat when he made his god knows how many jaunts around the world.

9/14/2005 08:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Then how come an arrest warrent was not issued for Yasser Arafat?"

Perhaps because no one besides Israel ever considered him a war criminal.

And Israel's unique take on the matter just might have had something to do with the fact that Arafat stood up to them. (But I bet you would argue it's because Israel is so good at detecting hidden "anti-semitism".)

9/14/2005 09:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Perhaps because no one besides Israel ever considered him a war criminal."

Interesting. So orchestrating pre-meditated mass murders of Jewish civilians is not a war crime? Who knew?

9/14/2005 09:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A day in a life of a jewbot...

Q: who tipped off the general and his ambassador?
A: antisemitism!

Q: why did the Scotland Yard officers not board the El Al Flight and take him off?
A: holocaust!

Q: how many times will you resort to diversion tactics?
A: six million!

Q: and your next try will be?
A: Arafat!

Q: who?
A: Hitler!

Q: what?
A: antisemitism.......

9/14/2005 10:39:00 AM  
Anonymous David said...

LOL LOL LOL!

9/14/2005 01:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're right. There is no antisemitism on this site. David Irving is just a good honest historian whose reputation was unfairly tarnished in a court of law. Never mind that HE was the one doing the suing.

Funny how there is actually no SUBSTANTIVE refutation of antisemitism, but just a claim that it is a "label." The bottom line is that if you are clamoring for charges against the IDF general, and not clamoring for similar charges against any senior member of the PNA, then you have exhibited a grotesque double standard. If it isn't antisemitism, I'm not sure what it is.

But those of us who point this out are "jewbots." I suppose that term is not antisemitic, but merely antizionist.

9/14/2005 02:46:00 PM  
Blogger Brian said...

Arafat was never found guilty of war crimes. I think he was a nobel peace prize winner actually.

If you thought he was a war criminal you should have made your case in a competent court.

I actually don't like extra-territorial laws such as these, but as was pointed out above these types of laws were passed in response to WWII crimes at the behest of the Jewish community.

I also think Israel has made it a crime to deny the holocaust - anywhere in the world. Nice vague law (what exactly is the "Holocaust" and what does it mean to deny it?) with world wide jurisdiction.

Israel obviously doesn't share the value of free speech with US either.

Finally, no one is required to prove they are antisemitic. The burden is clearly be on the person making the allegation. And try not to confuse comments on the blog with the blog itself.

Although I don't think the commentators are antisemitic, some are a bit sloppy with their comments.

9/14/2005 09:00:00 PM  
Blogger Brian said...

I will say that while the use of the word JEWBOT was out of line, the way in which Mr. Anonymous goes so quickly to the antisemtic card, along with his other paranoid rheotric like "throwing the jews down a well", gives one the feel of a caricature rather than a real person.

It is really over the top.

9/14/2005 09:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Arafat was never found guilty of war crimes."

Neither was general Almog.

"I think he was a nobel peace prize winner actually."

And this means?

"If you thought he was a war criminal you should have made your case in a competent court."

Personally, I don't really think political or military disputes should be resolved in European courts with no connection to the dispute.

"I actually don't like extra-territorial laws such as these, but as was pointed out above these types of laws were passed in response to WWII crimes at the behest of the Jewish community."

Ah yes, so the Jews are responsible for extra-territorial courts now! Add that to banking, capitalism, Hollywood, communism...

"I also think Israel has made it a crime to deny the holocaust - anywhere in the world."

Because you read idiotic sites like rense.com which don't understand what they are reporting on.

"Israel obviously doesn't share the value of free speech with US either."

Actually, speech is protected quite well there. On par with Europe, though not quite as stringent as the U.S.

9/15/2005 02:40:00 PM  
Blogger Robert Lindsay said...

Ah yes, so the Jews are responsible for extra-territorial courts now! Add that to banking, capitalism, Hollywood, communism...

It's probably true that Jews were a significant force in the setting up of extraterritorial courts as a result of the Holocaust. That ought to be beyond dispute.

It's quite clear, and has been verified by many nonracist authors, including many Jews, that European Jews were largely responsible for the initiation and growth of the banking industry, at least in Europe. The reason of course being that Christians were forbidden to loan money at interest. In fact, dozens of Jews have agreed with this statement in personal conversations with me.

Jews SURELY dominated world banking, mostly out of Europe, in the 19th Century and into the first few decades of the 20th. However, Jews no longer dominate world banking, which is now mostly run by Gentile corporations in Europe, the US and Asia. Rothschild still exists, but he's a minor player. All talk of "Jewish bankers running the world" is now the realm of anti-Semitism.

Jews played a major role in the development of capitalism, as noted in Marx's famous essay, "On the Jewish Questin". Many other Marxist authors, including many Marxist Jews, have also noted this. Tikkun Magazine, Micheal Lerner's progressive Jewish monthly, has also noted this role recently. Once again, no real debate here.

Jews surely dominate the media in the US and Russia, and play a significant role in Britain, Australia, France, Peru, Brazil, Sweden and Czechoslovakia. Outside of that, Jews do not dominate the world's media. For one thing, they are absent in East Asia, South Asia, Africa and the Muslim World. Talk of "Jews controlling the world's media" is anti-Semitic.

Jews of course played a major role in Communism, socialism, and the Left in general in the past century. That's not in doubt. However, comments like "Communism is a Jewish movement" smack of Nazi propaganda. Leftists like me realize the role that so many Jews played in our movement and immensely respect the Jews for that. Note that it was *progressive* Jews that helped our movement so much, not Jew-Nazis like anon.

The behavior of classic Jewish chauvinists like anon is a major reason why so many folks don't like Jews much. Good thing there are plenty of Chomskys and Lerners to balance out Jew-Nazis like anon.

9/17/2005 01:35:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home